fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2780 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2780 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #397.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Many people are raised in a culture that upholds and fetishizes sexual purity. This really is a cultural relic, but most often it's also deeply connected to their religion or their religious community, as well.

Many Christians, especially the kind you describe OP, aren't using the Bible as the actual basis for their personal values, merely the excuse for it. Their values actually come from their culture, family, community, etc. which often uses the Bible as an appeal to authority, completely ignoring many things the Bible actually says, or how much it contradicts itself.

The contradictions are inevitable, given that historical literary analysis suggests at least five writers or writing groups, with the parts of the Bible being written/created across a span of around a millenium. (Much of it was likely centuries old oral tradition before it was written down). There are a ton of contradictions and hidden morals that have not stopped people from relying on the Bible for legitimacy even as they completely ignore what it actually says. Hell, the American Civil War was considered an ethical clusterfuck because people found out the Bible both supports and opposes slavery.

When people use their religion to explain why they think something, don't use the primary religious text as the basis of understanding, because they sure as hell aren't. Look at the culture (of which there are a vast array and variety within one religion).

This comment is good and you should feel good.

Thanks. :)

Except it is so shriekingly Americocentric as to be postively inaccurate.

Is there a branch of Christianity that is heavily Bible-based and still has justification for "being unable to like female characters because they're slutty"?

That sort of logic sounds exactly like contemporary American/Anglo Christian logic, so I responded with the relevant cultural more/context.

Though quite frankly, it still applies to just about any branch of Christianity, or hell any religion with a heavy basis in a singular religious text. The religion will be as much about the culture as the actual religious document by virtue of the fact such religious documents are so long and comprehensive, they eventually contradict themselves, anyway. Eventually, a culture or religious sect has to 'pick' one interpretation, which means ignoring the other ones - and with them, actual things said in the document. Bible, Qur'an, Mahabharata, etc., it happens over and over again around the world and throughout history.

So yes, my response is Americocentric given that an Anglo-American religious culture is being implied by the secret. But I don't see how that would actually make it inaccurate in the context of describing religious cultures in general, seeing as most of what I said is hardly an American-only phenomenon.

I've been trying to think of something to say, but I think you've already touched every salient point.

The one thing I would add is that the Bible does actually have quite a bit to say about how practitioners should negotiate their sexuality, so Christian notions of purity, while generally misguided, haven't come totally out of left field.

It does, but a many of those values are contradicted by other parents of the Bible. Meanwhile, the vehemence of Christian obsession with sexual purity is due at least partially to mistranslation.

(The original four gospel accounts that mention Jesus' mother use a term to mean a young, unmarried woman, in an time when this wasn't inherently synonymous with virginity; later languages/translations/cultural contexts, though, translated 'maiden' as 'virgin', leading to the myth of the Virgin Mary.)

To be fair, there are a lot of things in the Bible that are contradicted by other parts of the Bible. It's very, very difficult to both take a Bible-based approach and be consistent.

Most of the Christians I've come across who are concerned with purity don't reference the Virgin Mary at all. They tend to pull from the Pentateuch, Timothy, Titus, and Corinthians, and while Timothy and Titus can be argued against on the notion that many scholars consider them forgeries, one can't argue away everything that appears in the other two. It is true, however, that a lot of popular conceptions are based on either mistranslation, culturally-biased modernization (e.g. the addition of the word "homosexuality" to now oft-quoted verses), or pure bullshit (King James version fans, I'm looking at you).

True, but in many ways, that's the point: almost any religious document can be interpreted in any way that suits the "user"/culture. Hell, any influential document period (look at all the debates in America about the Constitution).

And yeah, I tend to rope Catholics into Christianity when I say Christians, so I probably should have mentioned that.

(Also - people are adding the word homosexuality to Bible verses? What?!)

I think the overall takeaway is that it's nearly impossible for humans to be objective. Try as we might, we're always influenced in some way by our own cognitive biases. But...I think that might be just this side of veering off into a tangent.

And yeah! There are passages in Corinthians and Timothy where homosexuality was added only in recent translations (the argument, of course, is that the verses were implying homosexuality to begin with).

o.O

Yes. I know.

Yep, this. The Bible itself comprises a veritable library of Bronze Age literature: Mythologies, histories, allegories in the form of parables, records (there's a reason the ancient Kings had the books of Chronicles read to them, as a sleep aid), letters, and that's just the "canonized" bits!

A religion actually based on the religious mores, values, and codes found in the Bible, looks vastly different than mainstream/fundie Christianity does today.

One of my biggest issues with studying a Bible in school is that I actually think it's a great piece of literature to study because of its rich breadth of mythology and story telling - the Bible and many other religious texts with it. The problem is, I think this only applies when studied as a piece of fictional literature. Most attempts to teach a Bible in school are to teach it as a historical document. -_-

Yes, I've been an atheist my whole life, but going to a Christian high school taught me a lot that was really useful in understanding poetry and literature, and (mostly in an unfortunate sense) history.

[ SECRET POST #2780 ]

Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

+1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

o.O

o.O

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".

Re: Because the Bible doesn't mean jackshit to contemporary "Christian values".